Gay Bathhouses

The growing movement to virtually close the gay bathhouses appears, at first, to be a logical and sensible attempt to fight the spread of AIDS. Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich, who in my opinion is an insult to humanity, screams "blood money" regarding the owners of these establishments (Metro, Jan. 26). Further reflection brings back dim memories of Antonovich, Supervisor Pete Schabarum and others of their ilk getting equally hysterical about allegedly graphic AIDS education material being distributed in an attempt to fight the spread of AIDS.

The Board of Supervisors agreed Tuesday to settle a lawsuit brought by nine gay bathhouses last year that said county requirements imposed on the businesses violated the law. County rules mandated that such businesses obtain county health licenses, pay annual fees of more than $1,000, allow quarterly inspections and provide on-site HIV testing. Business operators "basically agreed to adhere to" county requirements but can complain of potential violations of the law or their rights, said Dr.

Re "Rising Rate of HIV Infection Renews Bathhouse Debate," March 23: The health department is considering tougher enforcement of existing laws. HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases are on the increase. Gay bathhouses and sex clubs often don't offer condoms or information on safe sex. Let me ask a politically incorrect question. What is the problem? Shut them down! How can it be lawful for a same-sex person to pay to get into a public establishment to have sex when it is against the law for women of ill repute to be paid for their trade?

Underwear "always optional" here, boasts one ad, offering three floors of pleasure, the hottest men and erotic theme nights. Another ad in the Los Angeles gay magazine Frontiers features a bare-chested worker, his utility belt bulging with condoms, with the logo, "play safe--condoms are always FREE." And in a third, a muscular man wearing nothing but a baseball cap and underwear rests his hand in a provocative manner.

The gay bathhouse issue has finally hit San Diego County. But even with the experience of other communities before us, there are more questions than answers on how to handle this dilemma pitting public health against individual liberty. Do bathhouses help spread AIDS? Should they be shut down as a public health menace? Or should they be regulated to make them less desirable for homosexual men seeking an easy avenue for anonymous sex with multiple partners?

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, expressing growing alarm at the rising number of AIDS cases, on Tuesday ordered public health officials and county lawyers to study whether and how to close down gay bathhouses.

The Board of Supervisors agreed Tuesday to settle a lawsuit brought by nine gay bathhouses last year that said county requirements imposed on the businesses violated the law. County rules mandated that such businesses obtain county health licenses, pay annual fees of more than $1,000, allow quarterly inspections and provide on-site HIV testing. Business operators "basically agreed to adhere to" county requirements but can complain of potential violations of the law or their rights, said Dr.

Specific "safe sex" guidelines that gay bathhouses would either have to follow or risk closure as public health hazards will be drafted in an attempt to curb the spread of AIDS, Los Angeles County's health services director said Tuesday. Director Robert C. Gates told the Board of Supervisors that state law empowers him to close bathhouses that he believes are contributing to the epidemic of the acquired immune deficiency syndrome disease by permitting unsafe sexual activity.

A majority of the San Diego City Council on Thursday tentatively supported the idea of outlawing sexual activity at gay bathhouses as a first step toward possibly closing the establishments and fighting the spread of AIDS. Five of nine City Council members, either directly or through spokesmen, said they could support a proposal now pending before the Board of Supervisors to require operators of bathhouses to kick out any patrons who engage in "high-risk sexual activity."

The last remaining gay bathhouse in San Francisco closed with hardly a ripple this week, a victim of stricter laws and changing life styles brought about by the AIDS epidemic. In April, the San Francisco city attorney's office had charged 21st Street Baths with violating a 1984 court order requiring clubs to bar sexual activities that could spread acquired immune deficiency syndrome.

Los Angeles County supervisors Tuesday finalized regulations requiring bathhouses and sex clubs to obtain health permits -- a move that will make it easier for authorities to shut down facilities that don't meet stringent new rules. The new regulations require that so-called "commercial sex venues," which are frequented by gay and bisexual men, be inspected quarterly and pay annual fees of $1,088 each.

Alarmed by high HIV rates among patrons of gay bathhouses and sex clubs, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors tentatively approved a law Tuesday that would require such businesses to obtain a health permit to operate. The permit could be revoked if customers, who pay entry fees to mingle in swimming pools and hot tubs or rent private rooms with beds, are allowed to have unprotected sex.

Los Angeles County's public health chief wants to license the county's 11 gay bathhouses and sex clubs. Bathhouse owners want the Board of Supervisors to nix the proposal, which their well-connected lobbyist calls "extremely discriminatory" and a violation of the civil rights of gay men. That such a debate still goes on in the third decade of the HIV epidemic is unbelievable. The regulation of bathhouses is not an assault on civil rights; it is a weapon against a public health crisis.

Faced with evidence that HIV infection is spreading rapidly among gay men after years of decline, top public health officials in Los Angeles County are urging the Board of Supervisors to increase regulation of gay bathhouses and sex clubs. The 11 gay bathhouses and sex clubs in the county should be required to obtain licenses from the health department to operate, county public health chief Jonathan Fielding said in a report this week.

Re "Rising Rate of HIV Infection Renews Bathhouse Debate," March 23: The health department is considering tougher enforcement of existing laws. HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases are on the increase. Gay bathhouses and sex clubs often don't offer condoms or information on safe sex. Let me ask a politically incorrect question. What is the problem? Shut them down! How can it be lawful for a same-sex person to pay to get into a public establishment to have sex when it is against the law for women of ill repute to be paid for their trade?

Amid growing concerns about HIV infection among gay men, public health officials in Los Angeles County are once again facing the politically charged question of how to regulate gay bathhouses and sex clubs. County health officials are considering tougher enforcement of existing laws that require bathhouse patrons to use condoms.

We are informed in an article titled "Future of Sex Clubs May Hinge on Zoning" (Oct. 27) that bathhouses catering to male homosexuals may only have a "zoning" problem for operating too close to residential areas. The article implies that homosexual bathhouses have been tacitly allowed to continue operation with the "understanding that they would prohibit anal sex without a condom and offer safe sex information and condoms to patrons. Enforcement (is) left largely to the owners." Imagine the public outcry that would ensue if heterosexual bathhouses commenced operation all over California.

I was offended and repulsed by your column "Within the Walls of a Gay Bathhouse Lies a World of their Own" (March 10) and angered that a renowned newspaper like the Los Angeles Times would print such offensive information. There is no community enhancement and nothing of any value or good in this article. Yet every reader--no matter how young--has been taken into a gay bathhouse! I feel betrayed by your newspaper, because this is a sleazy article to me. I ask that you not print articles like this in your widely acclaimed newspaper.